SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233529. October 4, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. AILENE SIAT y EVANCHEZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233529 (People of the Philippines v. Ailene Siat y Evanchez). — On appeal 1 is the March 9, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07477 affirming the March 31, 2015 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, Binangonan, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 13-177.
In Criminal Case No. 13-177, the RTC found accused-appellant Ailene Siat y Evanchez (Ailene) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In the same proceeding and judgment, the trial court, in Criminal Case No. 13-178, also found Penelope Evanchez y Esperon (Penelope) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. However, Penelope did not appeal her conviction and only Criminal Case No. 13-177 concerning Ailene was elevated to the CA and subsequently to this Court.
The Factual Antecedents:
Criminal Case No. 13-177 arose from an Information 5 charging Ailene with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165, thus:
That on or about the 15th day of March 2013, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another, 0.04 gram and 0.05 gram or a total weight of 0.09 gram of white crystalline substance contained separately in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, in consideration of Php500.00 [sic], which substance was found positive to the test [sic] for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Penelope, Ailene's sister-in-law, was separately charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of the same law.
During arraignment, both pleaded not guilty to their respective offenses. 7 The two cases were tried and resolved jointly.
Version of the Prosecution:
At around nine in the evening of March 15, 2013, a confidential informant (CI) reported to the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Binangonan, Rizal that Ailene (alias "Ailene") and Penelope (alias "Penny") were engaged in illegal drug activities in Sto. Niño St., Bilibiran, Binangonan, Rizal. 8
Thus, the police officers decided to conduct an initial surveillance to verify the information; Police Officer (PO) 1 Domar U. Talaue (PO1 Talaue) and Police Officer 1 Paquito R. Nicolas (PO1 Nicolas), together with the CI, went to the site. 9 There, the CI pointed to them Ailene and Penelope as well as other persons who were purported buyers of dangerous drugs. 10
On the same evening, PO1 Talaue and PO1 Nicolas were tasked to conduct a buy-bust operation. 11 They made the necessary coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 12 PO1 Talaue prepared the marked money. He marked a five hundred peso bill with "DUB." 13
PO1 Talaue and PO1 Nicolas, together with the CI, proceeded to the place of operation. 14 PO1 Talaue, as poseur-buyer, and the CI went to the area where Ailene and Penelope were standing. 15 The CI then introduced PO1 Talaue to the two accused. 16 Ailene asked if they are going to buy shabu, to which the CI responded in the affirmative. 17 Hence, PO1 Talaue handed over to Ailene the marked money, while the latter handed over to him two plastic sachets of suspected shabu. 18 Thereafter, PO1 Talaue scratched his head to signal that the sale have been consummated. 19 Upon seeing the signal, PO1 Nicolas arrived at the scene. 20 PO1 Talaue then introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Ailene. 21 Meanwhile, PO1 Nicolas noticed that Penelope was moving suspiciously; this prompted him to ask her to empty her pockets. 22 He then saw a teabag of suspected marijuana in her hands, resulting to him arresting her as well. 23
Still at the site, PO1 Talaue marked the suspected shabu with "LEN-1" and "LEN-2," while PO1 Nicolas marked the suspected marijuana with "PEN." 24 Inventory of the seized items were also done at the site. 25 PO1 Nicolas then turned over the suspected marijuana to PO1 Talaue. 26 Notably, only a representative from the media was present as witness during the inventory of the seized items. 27 Subsequently, Ailene and Penelope were brought to the police station. 28 After preparation of the necessary paperwork, PO1 Talaue, accompanied by PO1 Nicolas, brought the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City for forensic testing. 29
Police Chief Inspector Rhea Fe D.C. Alviar (PCI Alviar) received the seized items from PO1 Talaue and conducted the testing. 30 The seized items were found to be positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, and marijuana, respectively. 31
Ailene remained in detention for the duration of the trial. 32
Version of the Defense:
Ailene and Penelope invoked the defense of denial.
In her testimony, Penelope recalled that at around 2:10 in the afternoon of March 15, 2013, she was walking when she chanced upon a certain Tonton. 33 Tonton asked her to accompany him in pawning his cellphone to Ailene. 34 While on their way, a man who introduced himself as a police officer suddenly put his arms around her and whispered to her not to do anything and to just go with them quietly. 35 He was joined by another man who also introduced himself as a police officer. 36 They asked for the location of her house. 37 They stopped walking upon seeing Ailene in the comer of an alley. 38 Tonton approached Ailene, but she was talking with someone on her cellphone so she signaled him to wait. 39 The other police officer, however, approached Ailene and held her hands. 40 The two police officers asked Ailene and Penelope as to the location of their house, to which they responded by pointing to their apartment. 41 So they proceeded to the apartment. Inside, one of the police officers uttered "ilabas nyo na"; then Ailene answered "ano po 'ng ilalabas namin?." 42 They were told to take out the drugs but they replied that there were no drugs in their house. 43 Ailene's brother was at the house at that time, but he went outside when they arrived. 44 The two police officers searched their house but found nothing. 45 At around 6 o'clock in the evening of the same day, they were brought to the police station and were apprehended. 46
Ailene was also presented as a witness. She narrated that at around 2:10 in the afternoon of March 15, 2013, she went out of their house to fetch her twin children from a friend's house. 47 Before entering her friend's house, her cellphone rang and she saw that her husband was calling. 48 A man suddenly grabbed her hands and asked for the location of her house; she acceded and pointed to her house. 49 She was puzzled when she saw Penelope, her sister-in-law, being held by a man. 50 Thereafter, they went inside and the two men started to search the house. 51 She asked them if they have a search warrant but one of them got angry. 52 Then, Ailene and Penelope were brought to the police station for "verification" purposes. 53 The police officers showed them marked plastic sachets and took their photographs with the plastic sachets. 54
The defense also presented Aurora Guevarra (Aurora) and John Ryan Banaay Evanchez (John). Aurora (Ailene and Penelope's neighbor) corroborated Ailene's and Penelope's testimonies that the police officers proceeded to their house and asked them to take out the drugs that they were supposedly hiding. 55 She also witnessed them being brought to the police station. 56 John (Ailene's brother and Penelope's brother-in-law) likewise corroborated the defense's version as he was at their house that time. 57 He, however, stepped outside when he saw his sister and Penelope with two persons whom he thought to be credit investigators. 58 But he was able to hear the police officers asking them to take out the drugs that they were supposedly hiding. 59 He also witnessed them being brought to the police station. 60
After testifying, Penelope no longer attended the succeeding trials of the case. 61
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its March 31, 2015 Decision, 62 the RTC convicted Ailene for Illegal Sale and Penelope for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It ruled that the elements of both offenses were established beyond reasonable doubt. 63 Chain of custody was properly observed. In the illegal sale case, the prosecution was able to establish the consummated sale through PO1 Talaue's testimony. 64 Further, PO1 Talaue was able to preserve the seized items (including the marijuana) up to the time they were brought to the forensic laboratory for testing. 65 This was true as well with respect to the seized items in the illegal possession case. The trial court added that Penelope's suspicious movements during the buy-bust prompted PO1 Nicolas to ask her to empty her pockets, resulting in the discovery of the marijuana; this justified her warrantless arrest. 66
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
In light of the above, we find accused Ailene Siat GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentence her to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
We also find accused Penelope Evanchez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and [sic] illegally possessing 0.05 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and accordingly sentence him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. Bail posted for her provisional liberty is hereby REVOKED and we ORDER her immediate arrest.
Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the (PDEA) for proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision per OCA Circular No. 70-2007.
SO ORDERED. 67
Aggrieved, Ailene filed a notice of appeal, which was given due course by the CA. 68 Notably, Penelope did not appeal her conviction. The CA then ordered the parties to file their respective appeal briefs. 69
In her Appellant's Brief, 70 Ailene posited that the prosecution failed to establish her guilt and prayed for the reversal of her conviction. She argued that the buy-bust money was improperly marked: it is improbable for a police officer to just put any mark ("DUB") on the buy-bust money without knowing its meaning. 71 Ailene also argued that although PO1 Talaue marked the seized items at the site, he failed to identify them in open court to prove that the items he marked were the same with those brought in the forensic laboratory and subsequently in court. 72 Ailene also pointed out the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on who actually received the seized items in the forensic laboratory: PO1 Talaue stated that PCI Alviar and PCT Castillo where the ones who received the items, while PO1 Nicolas stated that it was PSI Villaraza. 73 Ailene further stated that PCI Alviar failed to identify her (PCI Alviar) marking on the seized items considering that there were other markings made by PO1 Talaue and PO1 Nicolas. 74 These, according to Ailene, created doubts in the preservation of the integrity of the seized items. 75
The prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Appellee's Brief. 76 It argued that the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were present. PO1 Talaue's testimony, as corroborated by PO1 Nicolas', provided the complete details of the buy-bust, from initial contact to her eventual arrest. 77 On the matter of chain of custody, the prosecution argued that the integrity of the seized items were preserved. The police officers marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized items as required by the law. 78 On the argument that PO1 Talaue failed to identify his markings in court, the prosecution asserted that he was able to clearly state during his cross-examination that he marked the suspected shabu with Ailene's initials (i.e., "LEN") because he initially was not aware of her full name. 79 Further, the argument that the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses are inconsistent fails to convince as the inconsistencies are minor and do not detract from the essential details of the committed offense. 80 Lastly, the prosecution stated that Ailene's defenses of alibi and defense are weak. 81
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its March 9, 2017 Decision, 82 the CA affirmed Ailene's conviction.
First, it held that the improper marking of "DUB" of the buy-bust money is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. 83 Second, the appellate court brushed aside the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on who received the seized items from PO1 Talaue in the forensic laboratory. 84 The appellate court held that these inconsistencies did not negate the existence of the buy-bust operation and had nothing to do with the elements of the crimes. 85 Third, the CA held that even if the prosecution failed to let PO1 Talaue identify his markings on the seized items, he was able to identify the photographs taken after the inventory. 86 PO1 Talaue's testimony can be verified by comparing the photographs and the items brought by PCI Alviar before the trial court. 87 The CA further stated that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 88 The prosecution adequately established every link and proved that there was no break in the chain of custody. 89 Lastly, the appellate court did not give credence to Ailene's defense of denial in favor of the positive identification of the seller and the observance of chain of custody. 90
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 31 March 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 13-177 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 91
Still aggrieved, Ailene elevated her case to this Court. 92 Both parties manifested that they will no longer file appeal briefs anew and will instead adopt the briefs they filed before the CA. 93
Issue
Whether or not Ailene's conviction is proper.
Our Ruling
The appeal has merit. The Court acquits Ailene. Further, the Court deems it proper to acquit Penelope, the accused who did not appeal her conviction.
We first discuss Ailene's acquittal. To note, only Ailene appealed her case to the CA and eventually this Court; thus, only the records of her case, Criminal Case No. 13-177, were elevated to this Court.
At the outset, an appeal of a criminal case throws the entire case wide open for review: 94
It is well-settled that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 95
Therefore, this Court can review and resolve the case even based on errors unassigned by appellant and not tackled in the lower courts' decisions.
On the substantive aspect, related to establishing the identity of the object of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the observance of the rule on chain of custody. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
xxx xxx xxx
The law requires that the taking of photographs and conduct of inventory of the seized items must be done in the presence of three witnesses — a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected official. Nonetheless, this rule is also subject to exceptions. People v. Lim96 (Lim) elaborates on this matter:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove[d] futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their noncompliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 97 (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted)
In buy-bust operations, the seized items must be photographed and inventoried in the presence of three witnesses. This requirement, before the amendment of the law, is admittedly quite strict. Indeed, there are exceptions to this, but the prosecution must be able to prove that the attendance of one of the witnesses was not procured due to the reasons such as those provided in Lim. The prosecution must show that the police officers have exerted earnest efforts in procuring the attendance of the witnesses.
Ailene's acquittal stems from the critical lapse of the police in complying with the witness requirement during the inventory of the seized items. Notably, this was not raised by the defense during trial or in its Appellant's Brief. More strikingly so, this was also not discussed, or even mentioned, in the decisions of the RTC and the CA. As the appeal of a criminal case throws its whole records wide open for review, the Court makes this lapse the basis of Ailene's acquittal.
Here, it is apparent that during the inventory of the seized items, only one witness was present — Mr. Wayne Lauzon, a representative from the media. Upon examination of the inventory report (one report for both shabu and marijuana) prepared by the apprehending officers, only the signature of the media representative was present (apart from the police officers'). 98 The portions where the DOJ representative and elected official were to sign were blank. 99
This is bolstered by PO1 Talaue's testimony on the matter. He stated during his direct examination and cross-examination that only a representative from the media was present at that time, thus:
Direct Examination of PO1 Talaue
Court
Q: Pwera dun (arrest and informing them of their rights) ano pa ang ginawa mo, kung meron man?
A: Inimbentaryo na po namin yung mga drugs.
Q: Saan ka nagimbentaryo?
A: Doon din po sa site.
Q: Proceed Prosec.
Prosecutor Macosa DC. Aragones (Pros. Aragones)
Q: I am showing to you an inventory attached to the records, is this the inventory you're referring to?
A: Yes, ma'am. 100
xxx xxx xxx
Pros. Aragones
Q: Was there any member of the media who witnessed this inventory?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Who was that member of the media?
A: Mr. Wayne Lauzon ma'am.
Q: After you made an inventory, what did you do with the specimens indicated in that inventory?
A: When we brought them in the station we get their names, photographed them and we prepare a request for laboratory examination and drug test ma'am. 101 [sic]
Q: You mention that pictures were taken. I am showing you pictures of two (2) women and specimens, are these the one [sic] you're referring to?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Who took these pictures?
A: Our Investigator ma'am.
Q: And where were you when those pictures were taken by your investigator?
A: I am also there ma'am. 102
xxx xxx xxx
Cross-examination of PO1 Talaue
Atty. Cynthia D. Iremedio
Q: At that time also there was no Brgy. Official present when you marked the inventory?
A: There were Brgy. Tanods ma'am.
Q: And despite the presence of the Brgy. Tanods, you did not asked [sic] them to sign the inventory receipt?
A: No ma'am, only the media ma'am.
Q: Tell me Mr. Witness, the one you allegedly recovered from Ailene and the one allegedly recovered from alias Penny were in your possession when you brought it [sic] to the police station?
A: Yes ma'am. 103
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And when you prepare the inventory, all the informations of the recovered items including the quantity you already put it? [sic]
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And in fact nilagyan mo pa ng signature?
A: Yes ma'am. 104
The foregoing clearly shows that only a representative from the media was present at the time of inventory of the seized items at the buy-bust site. In addition to the inventory report, PO1 Talaue straightforwardly stated that only a representative from the media witnessed the inventory and signed the report. There is no proof that a DOJ representative and an elected official was there. Yes, there were barangay officers (tanod) as stated by PO1 Talaue; they, however, do not suffice. They cannot be considered as valid witnesses as they were not elected officials or representatives from the DOJ. Even during the photography in the police station, the prosecution did not show that the required witnesses were there.
Further, the prosecution provided no explanation or justification regarding the absence of the two other witnesses. The most plausible reason is that the apprehending officers did not employ earnest efforts in procuring the required witnesses.
Thus, the Court finds that the apprehending police officers in the instant case failed to observe the three-witness requirement provided in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. This failure produces a gap in the chain of custody of the seized items that adversely affects their integrity and evidentiary value. 105 The identity of the object of the illegal sale was not properly established. The prosecution also cannot just rely on the saving clause found in Section 21 106 of implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. Contrary to the CA and RTC's finding, the prosecution's explanations on preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items do not suffice. The Court is not convinced. The prosecution, in its appeal brief merely narrated the steps that they have taken from seizure of the drugs to turn over to the forensic chemist and to the eventual presentation in court. It did not state how the apprehending officers addressed the lapse in the witness requirement in relation to the preservation of integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
As a result, the Court cannot be certain that Ailene is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The prosecution failed to overcome the burden of proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Ailene's acquittal is therefore in order.
Moving on, the Court also acquits Penelope. Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter;
xxx xxx xxx
If there are several accused, the appeal shall not affect those who did not appeal, except if the appellate judgment is favorable and applicable to the latter. A favorable judgment such as an acquittal shall benefit the co-accused who did not appeal or those who appealed from their judgments of conviction but for one reason or another, the conviction became final and executory. 107 This is in line with the principle earlier stated that an appeal of a criminal case throws the entire case open for review by the higher tribunal. 108
In People v. Diaz109 (Diaz), the Court has had the occasion to apply this rule to a criminal proceeding involving Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. In that case, there were two Informations charging two accused as follows: (a) Criminal Case No. CR-06-8538 charging Vevir Diaz y Malinao (Diaz) with Illegal Possession; and, (b) Criminal Case No. CR-06-8539 charging Diaz and Alvin Velasco y Huevos (Velasco) with Illegal Sale. 110 Joint trial ensued and the trial court convicted them of their respective charges; their conviction was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court. 111 However, only Velasco appealed his conviction (Criminal Case No. CR-06-8539 for Illegal Sale) before this Court. 112 The Court then acquitted Velasco in its February 21, 2018 Decision. 113 Subsequently, Diaz filed a motion before this Court, asking that the favorable decision be applied to him, citing Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. 114
The Court granted Diaz's motion and acquitted him of both charges. In the illegal sale case (where Diaz and Velasco were co-accused for one offense), there is no question that Velasco's favorable judgment of acquittal is applicable to Diaz. 115 In the illegal possession case, however, the Court held that the defects in the chain of custody as observed in the illegal sale case that served as basis for Velasco's acquittal were likewise present in the illegal possession case. 116 The seized items in the illegal possession case were handled in the same manner as the seized items in the illegal sale case. 117 Hence, the Court held that Diaz must also be acquitted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 118
It is apparent in Diaz that there were two different offenses. The seized items were also different. However, the manner of handling the seized items that was similar in both cases paved the way for the application of Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
Applying the foregoing to the instant case, Penelope should also be acquitted in the illegal possession case. The lapse in the witness requirement during inventory is also apparent in Penelope's case. Since the items seized from both Ailene and Penelope were marked and inventoried at the same time and in the same place although done by two different police officers. During the marking and inventory of the suspected marijuana seized from Penelope, only a media representative was present — as with the marking of the shabu seized from Ailene. Moreover, a single inventory report was prepared for both items. 119 As a result, there is also a gap in the chain of custody of the marijuana that affects its integrity and evidentiary value. Thus, the identity of the object of the illegal possession was also not properly established by the prosecution. Ailene's acquittal on the basis of non-observance of chain of custody is clearly a favorable finding that should benefit Penelope.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The March 9, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07477 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ailene Siat y Evanchez is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Likewise, the March 31, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Binangonan, Rizal with regard to Criminal Case No. 13-178 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused therein Penelope Evanchez y Esperon is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The order for her immediate arrest is LIFTED.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (J. Gaerlan recused himself for having penned the assailed Court of Appeals Decision; J. Lazaro-Javier designated as additional Member per Raffle dated September 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 109-111.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.
3. CA rollo, pp. 15-17. Penned by Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez.
4. Entitled "An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes." approved on June 7, 2002.
5. Records, pp. 1-2.
6.Id. at 1.
7.Id. at 57.
8.Rollo, p. 3.
9. TSN, May 22, 2013, pp. 6-7.
10.Id. at 7.
11.Rollo, p. 3.
12.Id. See records, p. 10.
13. TSN, May 22, 2013, p. 8.
14.Rollo, p. 3.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id. PO1 Talaue stated in his testimony the conversation between Ailene and the CI — Ailene: "O pare sino yang kasama mo?" CI: "Tropa ko, meron ba tayo dyan?" Ailene: "Meron, magkano ba?" CI: "Php500.00 lang" (TSN, May 22, 2013, p. 9).
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26. TSN, June 5, 2013, p. 7.
27. TSN, May 22, 2013, pp. 15, 25.
28.Rollo, p. 3.
29.Id.
30.Id.
31.Id.
32. Records, pp. 48-49.
33.Rollo, p. 4. Spelled or mentioned as "Tom-tom" in some parts of the TSNs.
34.Id.
35.Id.
36. TSN, October 2, 2013, p. 7.
37.Rollo, p. 4
38.Id.
39.Id.
40.Id.
41.Id.
42.Id.
43.Id.
44.Id.
45.Id.
46.Id.
47.Id.
48.Id.
49.Id.
50.Id.
51.Id.
52.Id.
53. TSN, January 29, 2014, p. 12.
54.Id. Records, pp. 19-20.
55. TSN, August 27, 2014, pp. 5-10.
56.Id. at 10-12.
57. TSN, November 13, 2014, pp. 6-8. TSN, December 11, 2014, pp. 4-8.
58. TSN, November 13, 2014, p. 8.
59. TSN, December 11, 2014, pp. 5-7.
60.Id. at 7-8.
61. Records, pp. 113, 155.
62. CA rollo, pp. 15-17.
63.Id. at 16.
64.Id.
65.Id.
66.Id.
67.Id. at 17.
68.Id. at 18-19.
69.Id.
70.Id. at 26-47.
71.Id. at 36-37.
72.Id. at 39-40.
73.Id. at 41-42.
74.Id. at 42-43.
75.Id. at 42, 44.
76.Id. at 62-81.
77.Id. at 69-75.
78.Id. at 77.
79.Id.
80.Id.
81.Id. at 77-78.
82.Rollo, pp. 2-11.
83.Id. at 6.
84.Id. at 7.
85.Id.
86.Id. at 8-9.
87.Id.
88.Id. at 9.
89.Id. at 9.
90.Id. at 10.
91.Id.
92.Id. at 12-15.
93.Id. at 17-18, 20-24, 29-33.
94.People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 242696, November 11, 2020.
95.Id.
96. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
97.Id.
98. Records, p. 23.
99.Id.
100. TSN, May 22, 2013, p. 14.
101.Id. at 15. (Emphases supplied).
102.Id. at 16.
103.Id. at 25. (Emphasis supplied).
104.Id. at 26.
105.People v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020.
106. Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;
107.People v. Bernardo, supra note 94.
108.Id.
109. G.R. No. 219174, November 11, 2020.
110.Id.
111.Id.
112.Id.
113.People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 219174, February 21, 2018.
114.People v. Diaz, supra.
115.Id.
116.Id.
117.Id.
118.Id.
119. See notes, 24, 95 and 96.